AN ANSWER To a Book entituled AN ACCOVNT OF THE Church Catholike Where it was before the Reformation And whether Rome were or be the Church Catholike Wherein is proved That the Catholike Church never was nor can be distinct from that which is now called The Church of Rome By R. T. Esquire Concordes omnes sumus unum idem sentientes quare qui societatem nostram devitat is nè lateat sinceritatem vestram quòd seipsum à tota Ecclesia abrumpit Basil Eust Printed at Paris 1654. AN ANSWER TO A late Book Entituled An Account of the CHURCH CATHOLIKE c. THough every idle Pamphlet deserves not the pains of an answer yet since new and dangerous Doctrines have so far over-spread this Nation and taken such firm root in the hearts of the people that any defence thereof though never so weak shall be readily imbrac't and highly magnified I esteemed it not altogether un-necessary to endeavour by this Reply to undeceive the dâ—luded multitude wâ—o are commonly carried away rather by the authority of some person in their opinion eminent then by force of Argument I should much wonder that so woâ—thy a person as report ba's represented D. Boughen to the world should be the Author of so unworthy a Pamphlet did I not consider the horried effects of pride and malice how they not only tempt wretched souls out of the right path that leads to eternall felicity but spur them on also to a violent opposition of Gods sacred truth till at length they break out into open blasphemy against God and his holy Church for which God forsakes them leaving them to their impious and damnable errors to maintain which the most learned and subtill of all Heretiques are forc't to fly to fallacious and ridiculous Arguments which though to some unwary reader they may at the first appearance seem to carry some show of truth yet upon more mature examination they will be plainly discover'd to be but false and deceiptfull colours and such are all the Arguments in these Answers to the two Letters of Mr. T. B. which I doubt not but I shall evidently demonstrate to any impartiall reader Sect. 1. First then Mr. T. B. desires the Doctor to shew him the Catholike Church distinct from the Church of Rome and those in her Communion The Doctor answers That the particular Church of Rome is to the whole Catholike as a particular member is to the whole body and therefore as the whole body is distinct from a particular member or a particular member from the whole body so is the particular Church of Rome distinct from the whole Catholike Rub up your Logick Doctor or let me advise you to go once more to the University and converse while with the young Sophisters who will tell you of a fallacy call'd Ignoratio Elenchi which indeed runs through almost your whole book For let us set these two Propositions against each other and then see whether we can discover any contradiction between them 1. Prop. The Catholike Church is not distinct from the Church of Rome and those in Communion with her 2. Prop. The particular Church of Rome is as distinct from the whole Catholike as a particular member is from the whole body Where is the contradiction if both these Propositions may be true as certainly they are where is the conclusion contradictory to the Proposition But let us help the Doctor and form his Argument into a Syllogism and then perchance we may discover a contradiction Ma. Every particular member is distinct from the whole body Min. But the particular Church of Rome is a member of the whole body Concl. Therefore the particular Church of Rome is distinct from the whole body I must here ask again where is the contradictory Conclusion to Proposition but perchance we wrong the Doctor in making that his conclusion which he intended for his argument to the conclusion contradictory Let us try that way then and see what will follow The particular Church of Rome is to the whole Catholike as a particular member is to the whole body Ergo The Catholike Church is distinct from the Church of Rome and those Communion with her An excellent consequence which every young Sophister will laugh at But let us try one way more for I would fain make something of it let us help the Doctor with another Syllogism Ma. The particular Church of Rome is distinct from the whole Catholike But Min. The Church of Rome and those in Communion with her is the particular Church of Rome Ergo The Church of Rome and those in Communion with her is distinct from the whole Catholiks Here I confesse is some apparency of contradiction in this conclusions but then what a ridiculous Minor is here By the same way of argumentation I will prove Westminster and the Suburbs of London to be within the walls of London Thus Ma. The particular City of London is within the walls of London But Min. The Suburbs of London and the City of Westminster adjoyning there unto are the particular City of London Ergo The Suburbs of London and City of Westminster adjoyning thereunto are within the walls of London If the Minor were as true as the Major the conclusion would necessarily be true but the Minor is as false as yours and yours as this for you must know good Doctor that the Church of Rome and those in Communion with her are as much distinct from the particular Church of Rome as the Suburbs of London and City of Westminster are from the City of London Sect. 2. Besides there is great difference between the Roman Church and the particular Church of Rome the Roman Church and the Catholike being Synonama's signifying one and the same thing And though in that demand of Mr. T. B. the Church of Rome may in sensu diviso be limited to the particular Church or Diocesse of Rome yet in sensu composito that is being joyned to the following words and those in Communion with her the Church of Rome is of as full and ample laâ—itude and extension as the whole Catholike Church And thus may be answer'd that triviall and childish objection against these words Roman Catholike as if they implied a contradiction they being but as I said before Synonima's both expressing the whole Church in her amplest latitude for the Church of God is Catholique in respect of her Faith Roman in respect of her denomination Catholike in respect of her doctrine Roman in respect of her discipline Catholike in regard she is not consin'd to one Nation People or Kingdome but invites the whole world to her Faith and Communion willingly imbracing all that will come unto her Roman in respect all particular Churches and persons whatsoever that are within the Communion of the Catholike Church are united in and subject to one Head the Bishop of the particular Church or Sea of Rome as being S. Peters Successor and appointed by Christ to be his Vicar on earth
the Protestants All these I purposely pass by because I will contain my self within the first five hundred years to which you have appealed You see then Doctor the practise and doctrine of the Church within five hundred years after Christs birth in the Fathers and Councels above-cited Be now as good as your word submit to their sentence for trial of the truth of Religion and you will by Gods grace soon return to your Mother the Roman Catholique Church Thus is that charge which you say Sect. 28. of your second answer We know not how to shift off fully answer'd 45. In the next Sect. 25. I meet with some Authorities against the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome The first is of S. Irenaeus who sharply checked and reproved Bishop Victor for keeping such a stir about the observation of Easter and excommunicating divers Churches because they would not stoop to his lure Answ That Pope Victor who govern'd the Church about 200. years after the birth of our Saviour excommunicated the Churches of Asia for their too much Judaizing in the observation of Easter is a very strong argument against you For first S. Victor was a pious and blessed man and therefore it cannot be reasonably imagin'd that he would usurp a power which Christ never gave him Secondly those Churches of Asia never protested against his Jurisdiction over them which certainly they would have done had not the Church in those dayes esteemed the Bishop of Rome the common Pastor of Christs Church and appointed by Christ to be under him the supreme Head thereof Thirdly when S. Irenaeus expostulated with him for his severity in excommunicating the Eastern Churches he never charged him for transgressing the bounds of his Jurisdiction or for usurping a power which Christ never delegated unto him which in all probability he would have done had he not look't on the Bishop of Rome as the supreme visible Head of Christs Church But because he conceiv'd not their offence so â—ainous as to deserve so heavy a censure he therefore took upon him to reprove Pope Victor by way of friendly and fraternal correction as S. Paul somtimes did S. Peter and as S. Paul never question'd S. Peters Jurisdiction nor denied him to be the chief and Head of the Apostles so neither did S. Irenaeus nor any of the Eastern Church that were excommunicated by Pope Victor question or protest against the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome And those words of S. Cyprian in the Councel of Carthage are to be understood of the African Bishops only who being of equal authority could not excommunicate one another They exclude not the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome otherwise S. Cyprian had contradicted himself who sayes plainly Epist ad Quintinum and Serm. de â—on patient that Christ built his Church upon S. Peter and li. 4. ep 8. ad Cornel. that the Unity of the Catholique Church consists in the communion with the Bishop of Rome His words you shall find hereafter Sect. 58. In the next place Sect. 26. enters an angry Bishop of Cappadoâ—ia Firmilianus speaking thus to Pope Stephen Teipsum excidisti noli te fallere Mistake noâ— thy self thou Bishop of Rome while thou goâ—st about to cast out others by this presumption thou hast cast off thy self from the body of Christ which is his Church Ans By your leave Doctor you misunderstand Firmilianus he speaks not as you would have him Indeed he was very angry with Pope Stephen because he excommunicated him for maintaining that Heretical Doctrine of rebaptizing Heretiques He never told Pope Stephen that he had cut himselfe off from the Church because he excommunicated Firmilianus or any other Bishopâ— but he was willing the world should think that Pope Stephen in defending the Baptism of Heretiques to be lawful had sided with them in their Heresies and had therefore cut himself off from the Church not because he had excommunicated any Heretical Bishop of the East but because as Firmilianus conceiv'd he too much complyed with Heretiques And you know Doctor the very same Doctrine for which Firmilianus was excommunicated was afterward in the first General Councel of Nice declar'd to bâ— Heretical 46. It is common say you in these daies even with tâ—â—se that conscientiously pretend to truth not to be content with the Rule of Faith whâ—â—â—â—as once delivered to the Saints and 〈◊〉 from them by the Primitive 〈…〉 transmitted â—o posterity bu◠〈…〉 after nâ—w invention◠〈…〉 â—hese courses I abhor with a 〈…〉 Ans Here Dâ—ctor you have directly given sentence against your self If you will but examine the Doctrines of the Roman Church and your Doctrines wherein you oppose and differ from her but according to S. Augustines Rule de Baptis li. 2. c. 23. and the principles of common reason you will soon discover which is the Rule of Faith deliver'd to the Saints receiv'd from them by the Primitive Church so transmitted to posterity and which are those new inventions For it is impossible that either you or any Protestant in the world can shew or prove that any one Doctrine which the Roman Church at this day maintains and teaches had its beginning or crept into the Church since Christ and his Apostles Whereas on the contrary there is not one Doctrine wherein you differ from the Roman Church but may be and has been often already prov'd and demonstrated to have begun since the time of the Apostles How then do you abhor with a perfect hatred these courses since you have imbrac't new inventions and totally forsaken the Rule of Faith delivered to the Saints receiv'd from them by the Primitive Church and transmitted to Posterity If it can be clearly demonstrated that all your Doctrines wherein you differ from the Roman Church are new and if it cannot be proved that any one Doctrine of the Roman Church had its beginning since the Apostles either you abhor not these courses with a perfect hatred as you profess or else you must in all points imbrace the Doctrine of the Roman Church 47. But stay Here I meet with a brace of fierce Syllogismes that fly furiously at the very throat of the poor Church of Rome The first is this That Church which hath erred is not the Pillar and ground of truth But The Church of Rome hath erred Ergo The Church of Rome is not the Pillar and ground of Truth The minor is thus prov'd by the second Syllogism That Church which hath professed Montanism Arrianism Eutychianism hath erred But The Church of Rome hath professed all these Ergo The Church of Rome hath erred And this minor you say you have sufficiently proved Sect. 18. 27. But I have more sufficiently proved that you have there proved nothing at all but are forc't to fly to most ridiculous shifts and fallacies and those fallacies I meet with here again Sect. 3â— where the Church of Rome is charg'd with all sins almost imagineable and divers Authors are cited to prove that
over all the parts of the Christian world and as being the great Metropolitan of the world infuses unity into all particular Churches and Christians She is in this her largest amplitude properly and truly call'd the Catholique Church And because the Catholique Church cannot fall into any error in faith or any other damnable error whatsoever nor teach Doctrines superstitious sacrilegious or repugnant to plain words of Scripture because she is and ever shall be guided by Gods Holy Spirit which hitherto has and ever shall lead her into all truth therefore it cannot be truly said that the Roman Church being this Catholique Church ever was or can be guilty of errors in faith or of superstitious sacrilegious or any damnable Doctrines whatsoever 73. Besides when Luther first for sook the communion of the Roman Church did he not stand alone was he not divided from the world even from those that were not in communion with the Church of Rome as well as from those that were did he communicate in the Sacraments or external worship with any particular Church Congregation People Nation or Sect professing the name of Christ can any man separate himself from that church in whose communion he once liv'd whose Faith and Doctrine he imbrac't and joyn himself to no other congregation in the whole world professing the name of Christ either in doctrine or external communion and yet be no Schismatique If so then there never was or can be any Schism If then Luther was Schismatical in being divided from the Whole Christian world in Faith and communion it necessarily follows that all those who first adhered to him forsaking the communion of that church whereof they had formerly been members and all those who have since followed Luther and have not joyn'd themselves to any church or Christian Congregation whatsoever besides themselves must be guilty of the same Schism How then is it possible for you to avoid the guilt of Schism since you have forsaken the communion of the Church of Rome with whom you once communicated as you confess Sect. 19. and have not joyn'd your selves to any other Christian Congregation whatsoever You abhor the communion of the Roman Church and that which you call the Greek Church abhors you Will you say that the Protestants are the whole Catholique Church then you contradict your self who grant Sect. 12. that Rome her self is a Church a member of the one Catholique You must also then confess that the Greek Church as you call it is no part of the Catholique Church and the truth is you have good reason so to do since she refused to receive you into her communioâ— abhorring and detesting your new Doctrines as heretical If then all those of the Protestant Sect be Schismatical as it most plainly appears they are certainly the Protestants of England must necessarily be involv'd in the same Schism 74. Let us now see how you can vindicate your selves from heresie I will not look beyond those four Doctrines wherewith you have charg'd the Church of Rome as being fond sacrilegious and repugnant to plain words of Scripture viz. Transubstantiation Administration of the B. Sacrament to the Laity in one kind Invocation of Saints Adoration of Images And by your opposing these doctrines as they are held and taught by the Roman Church I shall endeavour to make it appear to the world that you cannot avoid the just imputation of Heresie First then I demand whether the Fathers assembled in the four first General Councels were not competent and lawful Judges of the heresies of those times as the Arrian Macedonian Nestorian Eutychian c. and whether they had not power to condemn those heresies and to anathematize those that held and taught them as heretiques If they had no such power then did they most injuriously and tyrannically usurp a power and Jurisdiction which of right belonged not unto them But this cannot be prudently suppos'd that so many holy reverend and learned Fathers should usurp an authority or arrogate to themselves that power which was not lawfully deriv'd upon them by Christ and his holy church They were the selected Pastors of the whole church men renowned for their piety and learning and could not therefore be ignorant how far the Jurisdiction and authority of a lawful Councel might extend neither would their piety suffer them to transgress the limits of that authority If then those four first Councels had power to judg of and to declaâ—e and define doctrines of faith and to anathematize all those that should oppose them how came the Councels in succeeeding ages to be depriv'd of this power How came the church to lose that authority wherewith she was once invested was her power but temporary and after some few ages to expire or did Christ foresee thaâ— after some few ages his church would be no more infested with Schismatiques or heretiques but we plainly find that such have molested the church in all ages and therefore doubtless in all ages has this power continued in the church and if so why was it not as lawful for the second Councel of Nice which was held above 800. years since to judg and define what reverence and honor is due to holy Images and to condemn the Iconoclasts or Image-breakers as it was for the former Councels to condemn the Arrians Nestorians c And why was it not as lawful for that great and glorious Councel of Lateran wherein were present both the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Hierusalem to judg of and declare the true real and substantial conversion of the creatures of bread and wine after consecration into the true and real body and bloud of Christ and to declare the manner of that conversion as also to express the antient doctrine of the church by the proper signification of a new word Transubstantiation as it was for the first General Councel of Nice to judg of and declare Christs consubstantiality with the Father and to invent that new word to express the antient doctrine descending unto them by universal and in fallible Tradition of Christs co-eternal and co-equal Divinity with the Father You wil find in Vincentius Lyrinesis c. 32. that it was no new thing in his time for the church to invent new words to express old doctrines Why was it not lawful for the Councel of Constance Sess 13. to define and declare the indifferency and sufficiency of communicating the Laity under one kind only and to anathematize those that should pertinatiously oppose that doctrine Lastly why was it not lawful for the Councel of Trent Sess 25. to declare the lawfulness of invocating the blessed Saints and to denounce a curse against all obstinate opposers thereof Thus you see those four fond and sacrilegious doctrines and such as you say are repugnant to plain words of Scripture confirm'd declar'd and defin'd to be sacred truths and Apostolical Traditions by four General Councels You have also seen them held and practis'd by the antient Fathers that
thereof would stand in need of some supreme Head and Governour certainly he foresaw that when his Church should be more ample and numerous and more subject to divisions and factions it would stand in far greater need of an Vniversal Head wherein all particular Churches and members thereof might be united and therefore would not leave it without some common Pastor to guide and direct it And I desire you to take notice Doctor that herein all the Fathers both Greek and Latin Antient and modern unanimously agree and that this common and supreme Pastor of Christs Church ever was and ever must be S. Peters Successor who hithetâ—o ever since S. Peter plac't his Chair there has been the bishop of Rome and for ought we know ever will be till the end of the world And this those very Authors Stella and Lyra whom you have cited for your self will plainly tell you even in those very places which you have cited Besides who ever confirm'd the acts of any lawful General Councel but the Pope In his absence had he not his Delegates who saâ—e in the supreme place of the Councel though they were not alwayes Bishops and that even in the Easterne Church I could be more copious in this point but I here intend a reply only not a Treatise of Controversie 26. I come now to Pope John 22. who stands charg'd with a strange and monstrous Heresie viz. for affirming that God the Son is greater then God the Father and the Holy Ghost and Stella's authority is produc't to prove it Answ I confess Stella has accus'd him of it but I must be bold to excâ—pt against his authority and testimony in this matter of fact for it cannot appear that Stella spake this upon any just ground or probability for no man besides Stella either Catholique or Heretique that I could ever yet read or hear of ever charg'd Pope John 22. with that blasphemy 't is true some Heretiques and amongst the rest Calvin Just li. 4. c. 7. Sect. 28. have charged this Pope for affirming that the souls of men were mortal but most injuriously for he never taught nor held the mortality of the soul all that he held contrary to the opinion of the world was That the souls of the Just should not see God before the Resurrection This opinion was far from Heresie the Church never having defin'd the contrary and divers ancient Catholique Fathers being of the same opinion neither did he ever absolutely defend that opinion as an unquestionable truth For as Jo. Villanus Hisior li. 11. cap. 19. reports the day before his death he declar'd that he never had any intent to define it and that whensoever he discoursed of it his end was to find out the truth and added withall that he held the contrary opinion to be more probable and I am sure it is most improbable that Ockam his bitter enemy should charge him with this and Calvin with the other and yet neither of these should make any mention of that blasphemous Heresie which D. Boughen one of Stella layes to his charge if either he had been guilty or they could have found any probable argument or colourable ground that he might be guilty of that horrid blasphemy but suppose this had been true as it is far from all probability of truth what is this to the purpose What if Liberius Mâ—rcellinus and John 22. all Bishops of Rome had their private errors what is all this to the Church of Rome your Intelligencer Stella even in that place by you cited will tell you they erred as private persons only not as bishops of Rome or Heads of the Church they never decreed nor defin'd Heresie they never commanded any heretical Doctrine to be receiv'd as a divine truth by the whole Church They might fall into errors so likewise did Peter as Stella sayes even after Christ had prayed for him that his Faith should not fail But I suppose no man will be so unreasonable or blasphemous as to say Peters Faith failed after Christ had prayed that it should not fail though externally for fear of the Jews he denied it Peter then denied his Faith what was this to the other Apostles and the rest of Christs Disciples Liberius Marcellinus and Pope John 22. had their errors what was this to the Church of Rome had you read Stella but a very few lines further you would have found small incouragement to have cited his authority for your opinion for though he seems in some sense to grant your Minor Proposiâ—ion as you call it Sect. 18. in your missh pen Syllogism Sect. 17. viz. That Liberius Marcellinus and Iohn 22. erred in Faith yet he there plainly denies your conclusion viz. That therefore in their times the Church of Rome became no Church but was an Anti-christian Synagogue His words in Luc. 22. 31. the very place by you cited are these Ecclesia enim Autiochena Alexandrina Constantinopolitana saepe defecerunt à fide Ecclesia verò Romana nunquam defecil quia Christus ait Petro â—ravi pro te ut uon deficiat fides tua The Church saith he of Antioch Alexandria and Constantinople have often fallen from their faith but the Church of Rome never fell from her faith because Christ said to Peter I have prayed for thee that thy Faith fail not You see Doctor what a plain testimony here is against you out of the same Author which you have cited for you Stella was not so sharp-sighted as to see your consequence viz. That beause Marcellinus Liberius and John 22. had fallen from the true faith therefore the Church of Rome had forsaken her faith but the contrary he maintains exprefly viz. That although Liberius Marccllinus and John 22. all Popes of Rome denied the true Faith yet the Church of Rome never failed or fell from her faith He could not draw your Conclusion from such Premises as yours are and yet doubtless he knew a Syllogism and a rational consequence as well as you 27. But why should Vigilius be an Eutychian was it because out of reverence and respect to the Councel of Calcedon he could not be induc't neither by the perswasions nor threatnings of the Emperour to repeal an Act of that Councel in condemning those Tria Capitula which the Counccl had receiv'd as Orthodox nothing favouring the Heresie either of Nestorius or Eutyches one whereof was the Epistle of Ibas who publiquely in the Councel renounc't the Heresies both of Nestorius and Eutyches another the writings of Theodoret against Nestorius for which Theodoret had formerly been depos'd by the Eutychian Faction in that Latrocinal Councel at Ephesus and afterwards restor'd by the Catholiques I confess this is a very strong argument that he was no Eutychian but that he was one you only say it you alledg no reason you cite no authority nor testimony but that of Lyra whom I cannot find making any mention at all in the place by you cited in Mat. 16. either of
successor For no particular Church or person ever was or could be in communion with the Church of Rome that denied or questioned this Doctrine or that refused to yeeld obedience to the Sea of Rome as the Head and Mother of all Churches and to the Bishop thereof as Christs Vicar General on Earth How then came you in England to find out that at last which your Ancestors for almost 1000. years could not discover They all even from the first conversion of this Nation to the Christian Faith by St. Augustine to K. Hen. eights Defection were subject to the Sea of Rome and to the Bishop thereof as Christs immediate Vicar and under him the supream head of the Catholike Church How come you to be wiser then all your fore-fathers and the whole world bâ—sides Can it be reasonably supposed that those great Patriarchs of the â—ast the Patriarch of Constantinople of Hierusalem of Antiech c. with all the Bishops of Asia Africa and Europe should profess and acknowledge themselves subject to the Bishop of Rome had they not thought that his power and Jurisdiction over the whole Catholique Church had been by Christs especial appointment and commission What colourable plea then can you alleadge for your separation 31. But I perceive the Doctor is flying to his old fallacy in taking for granted or rather indeed downright begging that the Church of Rome can be no more then a particular branch or member of the Church Catholique For his words immediatly following are these And yet we shall maâ—gre Satan communicate with the Catholique Church while with one minde and mouth we glorifie God c. Good Doctor deceive not your self the Devil doe's but laugh at you for that idle fancy You cannot truly glorifie God either in minde or mouth whilest you separate your selves from Gods Church Neither can you communicaâ—e with the Catholique Church whilest you keep your selves out of the communion of the Church of Rome I told you before Sect. 2. that the Roman Church and the Catholique Church are in some sense Synonymaes signifying one and the same thing The Church of Rome is that Catholike Church out of whose communion whosoever dyes shall never see the face of God Now in what sâ—nse the Roman Church is called the Catholique Church though I have already shewed you yet I will here somewhat farther explain it The Catholique Church may be considered First in respect of her Faith and Doctrine Secondly in respect of her Government or Discipline According to the first consideration all true particular Churches and Christians professing and united in one and the same Faith and Communion are truly and properly called the Catholique Church and this is formally the Church Catholique We say not that the Roman Church is thus that is formally Catholique She is in this sense a part or member only of the Catholique Church But if we consider the Catholique Church in respect of her Government then the Church of Rome may truly and properly be called Catholique though not formally yet causally because she being the Mother and Head of all other particular Churches of the Christian world in right of her Bishop who is St. Peters successor and appointed by Christ to be the supream Head and Governor of his whole Church is the fountain and centre of Vnity which she infuses into the whole Catholique Church causing all the particular members thereof to be united in one and the same supream earthly Head and Governor Those then that submit themselves to the Apostolique Sea of Rome and are in communion with the Bishop thereof by subjecting themselves to his Authority and Government acknowledging him Christs Vicar on earth the sole supream Head of his Church may most properly be termed Roman Catholiques The Province of Canterbury consisted of many particular Churches or Episcopal Seas all united in the Church or Sea of Canterbury which gave denomination to the whole Province Canterbury it self was not the whole Province but because it was the Metropolitan Sea the Head and Mother-Church of the whole Province wherein all the particular Seas of that Province were united and to whom they yeilded obedience the whole Province received its Denomination from her which notwithstanding being considered as a particular Church or Diocesse was but a part or member of the Province of Canterbury So likewise the Church of Rome being the Metropolitan Sea of the whole world the Head and Mother-Church of the Christian world wherein all particular Seas and Churches whatsoever that are in communion with the Church Catholique are united every true Church in particular may be said to be within the universal Province or Church of Rome And the Roman Church comprehending under her all particular Churches whatsoever that are branches and members of the Catholique to whom they all owe obedience and subjection and in whom they are all united as in the grand Metropolitan Church of the Christian world may properly be styled the Catholique Church As then there was the particular Sea or Church of Canterbury and the whole Province of Canterbury so also there is the particular Sea or Church of Rome and the universal Church of Rome And as the particular Sea of Canterbury was a part of the Province of Canterbury so likewise the particular Church of Rome is but a part of the universal or Catholique Church of Rome the Church of Rome as truly comprehending all particular Churches of the Christian world as the Province of Canterbury contained all the particular Seas of that Province In brief as the Sea of Canterbury was to all the particular Seas of that Province so is the Church of Rome to all the particular Churches of the whole world And by this you may perceive how frivoulous that trivial objection is which has been so often made against that expression Roman Catholique as if those words implyed a contradiction in signifying Particular and yet Vniversal 32. And that the Roman Church has ever bin in this sense the Catholique Church viz. as being the Head and Mother-Church of all other Christian Churches appears as plainly as any other point of Faith or Doctrine whatsoever Neither the Scriptures themselves nor any Doctrine or Article of Faith written or unwritten has descended unto us by a more full and ample Tradition then this Dâ—ctrine of the Primacy of the Apostolick Sea of Rome and Supremacy of the Bishop thereof over all Churches So that he that shall deny or question this may as well doubt of the Scriptures and consequently of Christs coming in the flesh and dying for the sins of the world Are noâ— the writings of the Ancient Fathers full of iâ— has not the universal practise of the Church in all ages made it shine bright even at this day to the world Read the Fathers examine the Councels view the practise of Gods Church in all ages and you will soon conâ—ess this to be an apparent and unquestionable Truth Besides consider that the Primacy and authority
unanimiter nobiscum conspirat Basil Epist 293. Here you see the whole Western Church vindicated from that Heresie which doubtless S. Hilary well knew Those then in France that retain'd their antient Faith kept themselves within the communion of the Roman Catholique Church from whose communion never yet any separated but Schismatiques and Heretiques 34. The nâ—xâ— Father of the Church that I mâ—et with is Arch-bishop Lawd as you are pleas'd to call him whose authority you have often cited which I cannot but wondâ—r at since he was so far from being a Father that he neither livâ—d nor died a Son of the Church but the Doctor out of that pretended Aâ—ch-bishops book charges â—hâ— Church of Rome with four opinions â—â—pugnant to thâ— plâ—in words of Scripture viz. 1. â—ransubstanâ—â—ation 2 Administration of the blessed Sacrament to the Laity in one kind 3. Invoâ—ation of Saints 4. Adoration of Images Answ Though it be not much pertinent to our present purpâ—se to examine these Dâ—ctâ—ines according to Scripture since the Doctor confâ—ssâ—s that the Church of Rome nâ—twithstanding her errors is a trâ—â— Church and a member of the one Catholique Sect. 12. yet because he bâ—lieves the Church of Rome is justly charged with thâ—se â—nsound and un-Catholike Doctrines as â—â— is pleased to caâ—â— them I could not pass them by but shall endeavour as briefly as may be to vindicate the Church of Rome from that foul and false câ—lumnie 35 First then Transubstantiation according to the Roman Catholike Doctrine is a true and real change of the total substance of Bread and Wine after and by viâ—â—ue of the words of Consecration pronounc't by the Priest into the true reall and substantial Body and Blood of Christ Let us now examine how this Doctrine is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture Our blessed Saviour saith Matth. 26. 26 and Maâ— 14. 22. This is my Body and This is my Blood The words are plain and being taken literally must necessarily import a change For that which was before Bread and Wine after our Saviours consecration is according to the proper and literal sense of the words the very Body and Blood of Christ Where is then the Repugnancy between this Doctrine and the plain words of Scripture Christ sayes of that which was Bread and Wine This is my Body and This is my Blood The Church of Rome sayes so â—oo Instead then of a Repugnancy here is a fulâ— consent and agreement between the plain wordâ— of our Saviâ—ur and thâ— Doctrine of the Church of Rome Well but the words are not to be taken literally but figuratively Be it so Then is this Doctrine of the Church of Rome repugnant at the most but to the figurative sense not to the plain words or literal sense of Scripture But to come closer If the Doctor can produce any one Text of Scripture that shall be but halfe as plain for the Metaphorical or figurative sense or that the Creatures of ' Bread and Wine are not really and substantially changed into the very Body and Blood of Christ after Consecration but retain their former nature and substance of Bread and Wine as these words of Christ are for such a change I' will then for my part give the cause and turn Protesiant too or any thing else that Doctor Boughen shall command me to be But if he cannot produce any such Text as most certainly he cannot then is the Doctâ—ine of the Protestants and not that of the Church of Rome repugnant to the plain words of Scripture 36 But to justifie your selves and to avoid the Catholike Doctrine of the real presence and Transubstatiation you thus interpret those words This is my Body c. viz. This is a signe or figure of my Body but what Scripture have you for it What authority What Catholique Father what Councel did ever give that interpetation of those words I confess if there be no true and real change of Bread and Wine into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ in the blessed Sacrament then will I also admit of that interpretation For if there be no such change then of necessity those creatures of Brâ—ad and Wine can be but bare signes and figures onely of Christs Body and Blood But behold Gods Providence over his Church The Holy Ghost fore seeing the evasions and shifts that some men would use to delude the world and to poison the Church with their Heretical Doctrines in opposition to Gods sacred Truth has in St. Lukes Gospel 22. 19 20 utterly cut you off even from that very glosse and interpretation The words of the Evangelist are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is the Cup of the new Testament in my blood which Cup is shed for you These are the words in the Original Language of St. Lukes Gospel And though both in the Latin and English translation the Relative which may seem to refer to Blood as well as to Cup yet in the Greek it is very plain that it must refer to Cup. If then that which was câ—â—â—ain'd in the cup was that which was shâ—d for the sins of the world how could it be Wine oâ— a sign or figuâ—e â—â—ly of Christs bloud or any thing else but the true and real bloud of Christ For no sign oâ— sigure of bloud but Christs true and real precious bloud was shed for the sins of the world I will endeavour to make this Doctrine appear more plaine by this Syllogism That which was shed for the sins of the world was the true and real precious bloud of Christ But that which was in the cup was that which was shed for the fins of the world Ergo. That which was in the cup was the true and real precious bloud of Christ The Major Proposition cannot be denied without blasphemy the Minor is most plain by the words of the Text and therefore the conclusion must necessarily follow Here is no Fallacy Doctor in this Syllogism no more terms then ought to be in a Syllogism but to utterly debar you of your sign or figure I argue thus That which was shed for the sins of the world was not a sign or figure only of Christs bloud But that which was in the Cup was shed for the sins of the world Ergo. That which was in the Cup was not a sign or figure only of Christ's bloud Those words then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is the Cup the New Testament in my Blood cannot admit of this interpretation This Cup is a sign of my Blood unless you will grant that a bare sign of Christ's bloud was shed for the sins of the world which is high blasphemy For it is very plain by the express words of the Text That the very Cup which was the New Testament in Christ's Blood was shed for the sins of the world wheâ—efore that Cup could not be a sign onely but the tru precious bloud of our Saviour Whâ—t say you Doctor who now
reason that the word Quapropter may refer to the former words and that the Father speaks as the Doctor would have him What shall we discover then even this consequence Heretiques by having a false opinion of God are cut off from the Catholique Church therefore every violation of Faith cuts not off from the Catholique Church Most admirable this is just like the rest If this be a good consequence there was never any bad or fallacious Just so will I prove that every damnable sin excludes not a man from Gods favour Murther and Adultery exclude a man from Gods favour therefore not every damnable sin excludes a man from Gods favour You will say this is no good consequence I say so too but I am sure it is as good as yours the very same with yours 70. Now we come to examine who are in Schism the Church or Luthers followers or indeed rather whether there be any Schism or no between the Church of Rome and the Protestants which the Doctor seems to deny The truth is M. T. B. has so gravel'd the poor Doctor that he is forc't to fly to most miserable and ridiculous shifts M. T. B. very rationally and judiciously sayes by way of objection that Christs mystical Body is but one and although the Body be made up of divers members yet all these members must communicate one with another for if a member be separated but by Schism it is like an arm cut off from the Body or a branch from the Vine which makes that arm or branch no part of the Body or Vine To this the Doctor answers thus What though all this be granted will this make one of the two no Church I believe not Reply 'T is very likely Doctor that you believe so but what man of sense or understanding can believe so Can a particular church separate from the whole Catholique Church both in Doctrines of Faith and external communion and yet not be Schismatical but still continue a Catholique Church who ever before D. Boughen could say or think so Well but S. Pauls authority is alledged 1 Cor. 12. 25. where it is said that all the members of the body must communicate one with another in the same care one for another in the same sufferings and rejoycings one with another What then Is there no other communion necessary to avoid Schism This is just like your former consequences The members must communicate one with another in the same sufferings and rejoycings one with another therefore to avoid Schism there is no other communion necessary I am sure this is no necessary consequence but with such poor fallacies as these Heretiques have always endeavour'd to deceive the world Neither can that place of the Apostle advantage you at all for he there only compares Christ's mystical body the Church to the natural body and sayes that as all the members of the natural body mutually assist each other and without any Schism that is any division or discord joyntly concur to preserve the body so also in the Church which is Christs mystical body there are different orders functions and offices all which ought mutually to assist each other for the preservation of the whole church this is al that S. Paul intends in that place as by the context of the whole cha wil evidently appear to any indifferent Reader 71. We are not bound you say Sect. 32. to communicate with the Church of Rome in the same ceremonies gesture superstition or error Answ First I deny that the Roman Church is or ever was or can be guilty of superstition or error in faith Secondly I grant that you are bound not to communicate with any Nation or people in superstition or error As also that you are not bound to use the ceremonies of other Catholique Churches There be divers particular Churches that differ from each other in some ceremonies and yet are in perfect charity and communicate with each other As for example The Westerne Church consecrates in unleavened bread after the example of our B. Saviour who first instituted the blessed Sacrament and consecrated in unleavened bread but the Greeke Church has alwaies accustomed to consecrate in leavened bread besides these two Churches differ in divers ceremonies of the Masse though not in any substantiall or essentiall part thereof And yet these two churches are in perfect charity and communion with each other I speak here of the true Catholique Greek Church not of those schismatiqâ—es and Heretiques who have cut themselves off from the Catholique Church whom notwithstanding you are pleas'd to cal the Greeke Church Neither doe those churches abhorre each others ceremonies as superstitious or unlawfull but the particular members of each church are most ready to conforme to the ceremonies and discipline of each other according as any of them shall travell or passe from one church to the other As when a bishop or Priest of the Easterne church travells into any part of the Westerne he then makes me scruple to consecrate in unleavened bread as formerly in his own church he consecrated in leavened but when any two churches shall abhorâ—e and detest the Doctrine and ceremonies of each other as hereticall sacrilegious idolatrous and repugnant to plaine Scripture there is then a perfect schisme And since these two abhorre each others communion charging each other with sacrilegious idolatrous and damnable errours they cannot both meet in the Catholique Church and therefore one of them must necessarily be cut off from Christ's mysticall body either by heresie or schisme or both Wherefore in granting that assertion of Mr. T. B. you must also grant that either the Church of Rome or the Protestants are guilty of heresie or schisme or both and therefore no part of the Catholique Church 72. It is then now time to show who is the schismatique And that you are schismaticall I prove thus Those that have seperated themselves from the communion of the Catholique Church are schismaticall But you have separated your selves from the communion of the Catholique Church Ergo. You are Schismaticall The Major is evident and often granted by the Doctor the minor is thus prov'd Those that have separated themselves from the communion of the bishop and Church of Rome have separated themselves from the Catholique Church But you have seperated your selves from the communion of the bishop and Church of Rome Ergo. You have separated your selves from the communion of the Catholique Church The minor is acknowledg'd by the Doctor Sect. 19. of his first Answer The major is sufficiently proved Sect 25. and Sect. 58. wherefore I will here only add some few authentique testimonies more in proofe thereof S. Cyprian sayes li. 4. ep 8. a d Cornâ—l Pontif. Placuit ut per Episcopos reteniâ— Ã nobis rei veritate ad comprobandam ordinationem tuam c. ut te universi Collegae nostri communicationem tuam id est Catholicae Ecclesiae unitatem pariter charitatem probarent firmiter
tenerent Wee thought fit c. that all our fellow bishops might stedfastly approve of and imbrace you and your communion that is the Catholique Churches unity and charity Is it not plaine by these words that the unity of the Catholique Church consists in the communion with the Bishop of Rome And if there be no Catholique unity but in communion with the Bishop of Rome it is apparently impossible that any one can be united to the Catholique Church that is not in communion with the Bishop and the Church of Rome Besides that the Church is built upon S. Peter and his Successors I have already fully proved Sect. 25. and Sect. 58. to which I will add one testimonie more out of S. Cyprian Epist ad Quintinum Nam nec Petrus quem primum elegit super quem aedificavit Ecclesiam suam c. For neither Peter whom our Lord chose to be the first and upon whom he built his Church c. The like words he has Ser. 3. de bon pat whosoever then forsakes the foundation cannot be part of the house or building The whole building rests upon the foundation wherfore he that is separated from the foundation is separated also from the building which is the house the Church of God And you must remember Doctor that S. Cyprian liv'd in the yeare of Christ 250. and therefore long within the first 500. yeares to which you have appeal'd Sect. 27. so that you must either confesse the Prorestants to be out of the communion of the Catholique Church and consequently schismaticall at the least or else you must revoke and renounce your appeale If you will say that the sense of the whole Church appeares not fully in the writings of particular Fathers you shall heare the confession and acknowledgment of 520. Fathers assembled in the fourth Generall Councell at Calcedon in the yeare of Christ 451. who all unanimously acknowledge Pope Leo their head Their words are Quibus tu quidem sicut membris caput praeras Over whom that is the Fathers assembled in the Councell thou wert as the Head over the members And it is to be observ'd that this Councell was held in the Easterne Church and consisted for the most part of the Fathers of that Church wherein notwithstanding Pope Leo's Delegates sate in the uppermost Seat and took place of the Patriarch of Constant inople himself even in his own Patriarchate which would never have been permited had not the Pope's Jurisdiction extended to the Eastern as wel as the Western Churches About 50. yeares after the Councell did not the Eastern bishops acknowledge that it was necessary for all Christians to communicate with the bishop and Church of Rome you have heard Sect. 58. that Iohn Patriarch of Constantinople excluded al from the communion of the Catholique Church that were divided from the Apostolique sea of Rome which doubtlesse the great Patriarch of the East would never have acknowledged had it not descended by universall Tradition that the Bishop of Rome was appointed by Christ to be the supreme Pastor and Governour of the whole Church Examine all this Patriarch's letters written to Pope Hormisda and you shall find them all directed to the Pope after this manner Domino mâ—o per omnia sanctissimo And can any reasonable man imagine that so great a Patriarch would have stiled the Pope his Lord if his power in the Easterne Church had been absolute and independent on the sea of Rome In like manner Dorotheus Bishop of Thessalonica in the Eastern Church in his Epistle to the same Pope has these words Ista nunc scripsi Beato Capiti nostro per Patricium c. These things have I now written by Patricius to our Blessed Head By this it plainly appeares that in those dayes within the first 600. yeares of Christ the Bishop of Rome was acknowledg'd the Head of the Eastern Churches as well as of the Western and that by the Eastern Bishops themselves even by their cheife and Head-Bishop the Patriarch of the East who likewise as you have already heard confest that all Catholique Communion flowes from the Apostolique sea of Rome as the Head and Fountain thereof And what better interpreter of Scripture or more faithful preserver of Apostolique Traditions can therebe then the antient and universal practise of the Church To the practise of former Ages and Declarations of antient Councels let us joyn the definiâ—ions of later times viz. of the Councel of Florence in the year 1439. where the Patriarch of Constantinople was present in person and all the other Patriarchs either personally or by their Delegates Let us then hear the whole Church speaking in that Councel Item definimus Sanctam Apostolicam sedem Romanum Pontificem in universum Orbem tenere primatum c. Concil Florent Act. ult Also we declare that the holy Apostolique Sea and Bishop of Rome hath the primacy over the whole world and that the Bishop of Rome is S. Peters Successor who was chief of the Apostles and that he is Christ's true Vicar and Head of the whole Church the Father and Doctor of all Christians and that in S. Peter full power was given to him the Bishop of Rome by our Lord Jesus Christ to feed rule and govern the whole Church To this definition subscribed all the Patriarchs of the Church and amongst the rest the Patriarch of Constantinople himself You shall have his subscription as it is set down in the Acts of the Councel Joseph miserations divinâ Constantinopolis c. Florent An. 1439. I Joseph by the mercy of God Arch-bishop of Constantinople and new Rome and universal Patriarch because my life is almost at an end do therefore by the goodness of God according to my duty publish this my opinion to my beloved sons in this writing For all those things which our Lord Jesus Christs Catholique and Apostolique Church of Old Rome believes and imbraces I profess that I also do hold and believe and fully consent unto them And I grant that the blessed Father of Fathers and chief Priest the Pope of Old Rome is our Lord Iesus Christs Vcar and I deny not that there is a Purgatory for souls And note that this is the profession of a dying man past hope of life Here you see a concurrence of the later ages with the former Here you see all the churches of the world consenting to the Primacy and Jurisdiction of the Church of Rome Here you have seen the practise of the antient church the Declarations of former Councels and the Definitions of later then which nothing can better interpret Scripture or more faithfully preserve divine truths and Apostolical Doctrines to posterity Since then the Church of Rome is the Head and Mother-church of the world and consequently the Fountain of Unity whosoever shall separate himself from her communion cannot possibly be a member of the Catholique Church And since the Church of Rome by her power and Jurisdiction diffuses her self
liv'd within the first 500. years of Christianity Sect. 35. 36. 37. 38. c. what can you say for your selves what can you plead for your selves that you who deny the Doctrines of the church should not incur the penalty of the curse 75. You will say perchance that these are not Doctrines and Declarations of the whole Church Catholique but of the Church of Rome only and those in communion with her which you say is but part of the Catholike Church But this wil not now serve your turn whether the Church of Rome and those in communion with her be a part only of the Catholike Church or the whole Catholike Church it self as I have sufficiently prov'd it is it matters not you cannot be excus'd from heresie For when Luther was a Fryer before he set himself against the church what church what congregation of Christians what Nation what people nay what man was there in the whole world professing the name of Christ that denied or opposed those or any one of those forementioned Doctrines These were doctrines receiv'd imbrac't and publikely profest by the whole Christian world Not the Church of Rome and those in communion with her only but those also that were out of her communion as the whole pretended Greek Church receiv'd and profest these doctrines in their universal publike and daily practise as appears by Jeremias Patriarch of Constantinople in his sententia desinitiva de doctrina Religione Wittenberg en sium Protestantiâ—m as also in his Censura Orientalis Ecclesiae where you shall find a detestation of your opposite doctrines 76. But if those doctrineâ— be fond sacrilegious and repugnant to plain words of Scripture where was the church that pillar and ground of truth when the whole Christian world before Luthers apostasie receiv'd held and maintain'd them and if those that shall thus separate themselves from and oppose the whole church in doctrines of faith receiv'd by the whole church as such and acknowledg'd by her to be of universal and Apostolical tradition be not heretiques there never was neither is it possible that there ever should be any heretique in the world And yet yours was no separation but a reformatson But what can be invented more absurd or ridiculous then that one single apostate in Germany or a few avaricious and flattering Courtiers in England should first forsake the communion of that church wherein they had liv'd from their Baptism and wherein all their forefathers for almost 1000. years liv'd and died and afterwards renounce doctrines of Faith universally receiv'd by the church and then take upon them to be Judges of the whole church which Christ has made the Supreme Judg of all controversies and to reform the whole church and that in matters of doctrine but you must know Doctor that the Catholique Church cannot teach or maintain sacrilegious doctrines or such as are repugnaut to plain words of Scripture For then she would cease to be holy and consequently to be a church holiness being essential to Gods church as appeares both by the Nicene and Apostles Creed If then the church should obtrude upon the world sacrilegious and idolatrous doctrines and such as are repugnant to plain words of Scripture instead of sacred and divine truths she could not possibly be holy Since then the whole Christian world when Luther was a Fryer taught and maintain'd those four foremention'd Doctrines which you are pleas'd to stile sacrilegious and repugnans to plain words of Scripture it must necessarily follow that either at that time God had no church at all which your self confess to be impossible or â—ls that those doctrines are not sacrilegious or repugnant to plain words of Scripture but sacred and Apostolical truths and if so what are those that oppose and contradiet them 77. Hence it appears how false that is which you say Sect. 32. That you communicate with the Church of Rome in necessaries in Faith Hope and Charity c. since you oppose her in doctrines of Faith and by your schisme a sin directly against Charity have cut your selves off from her communion With what face then can you say Sect. 34. That you abhor not mutual communion with her in divine worship Do you not abhor to communicate with her in the Sacraments Do you not call her adoration of Christ in the B. Sacrament Idolatry And whereas you say there that you cannot endure that divine worship be given to any other then to the B. Trinity I would have you know that the Church of Rome gives not divive worship to any thing but God and if you will say that she does you will but proove your self very malicious or very ignorant 78. In your 35 Sect. I find nothing but what is either impertinent or already answered 79. In the next Sect. I meet with a bold challenge I challenge saies the Doctor the most able of your faction to shew me any one passage in our Common-Prayer Book that is not Catholique Answ If your Book of Common-Prayer be Catholique yet you have no great reason to boast of it you may thank the Church of Rome for it from whom you borrowed it which you know Doctor was the principal reason why those of the Puritan faction refus'd and abhor'd your Book of Common-Prayer as being Popish and super stitious But if all in that Book be Catholique it is rather an argument that the Church of Rome is Catholique from whence you took it then that you are so For all in that Book may be Catholique yet you may be Heretical You may oppose as you do other doctrines of Faith that are not contained in nor deducible from your Book of Common Prayer And if about the beginning of your defection some Catholiques frequented your Service it was because they esteemed it devout and pious as being all taken out of the Office and Missale of the Church of Rome They had not fully considered nor yet cleerly apprehended the unlawfulness thereof Wherefore it behoved the common Pastor of Gods Church to put them in mind how impious and sacrilegious it was for Catholiques to communicate with those who were guilty both of Schism and Heresie in divine Service 80. And whereas you alledg S. Paul to prove that in meats and matters of indifferency we are not to judge one another you must know Doctor that Doctrines of faith such as are Declarations and definitions of Generall Councells the lawes and Canons of the Vniversall Church made and generally receiv'd by the Church as the ancient Canons concerning Festivalls and Fasts are not matters of indifferency and cannot be violated without schism or Heresie 81. But I wonder with what face you can call your Congregation the Mother-Church of Catholiques Sect. 39. 'T is you that have forsaken your Mother-Church that Church wherein all your fore-fathers liv'd and died for about 1000. yeares together you confesse that once you communicated with the Church of Rome and that since you have forsaken her communion